Atheism vs. Christianity


So, my last post Between Science and Faith brought a chorus of boos from both sides of the aisle. Too bad, because in my opinion you deserve it…and each other. So, let’s review the bidding.

At least in this country, the battle between science and faith boils down to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I refer to it as “Dueling Delusions.” The main sticking point has to do with which side is deemed to be more tied to a “preconceived ideology”. In my opinion, that’s a toss-up since Christianity believes in talking snakes while at least some atheists, who rely on science to describe all things big and small, apparently believe that science can observe beyond space and time and that scientific formulae written on a chalkboard constitute proof.

The underlying problem for Christianity is that it is based on a reinterpretation of scriptures written by Jewish holy men whereby Christianity claims that the writers of the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) didn’t understand what they were writing.  Opposed to that, we have atheism which is an ideology centered around materialism, evolution and naturalism, and which uses cherry-picked scientific theory (not fact) to support its ideology. I say “cherry-picked” because as Nobel laureate George Wald admitted, “Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

The larger question in this debate is why is there a debate at all and why is it only between  atheism and Christianity. Why aren’t the other world religions (of which there are several thousand) included in this discussion? The reason as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, said, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the debate is not necessarily about who is right but rather it’s about whether atheism can replace Christianity (as the prevailing religion).

As to where I stand in this debate, I simply contend that both sides are based on preconceived ideology. This has resulted in a debate that has gone absolutely no where. Both sides believe in their own dogma, a dogma which is impervious to falsification. As Mark Twain once commented, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”



This debate, however, is merely a microcosm of the contentious, divisive social arguments one can witness in society today.  In the end, it is not so much an intellectual argument as it is really about who gets to rule and the social/political/economic ideas that each group endorses. It’s “identity politics” at its finest. It’s ultimately about whether the rights of man come from God or the state. That’s why I say that America is at war with itself: verbally, spiritually and politically. You might want to think of it as a Second Civil War. Hang on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.





29 Responses to “Atheism vs. Christianity”

  1. Nan said

    I have a hunch you may get some kick-back on this, but overall, I think you have a point … and it’s why I won’t get into hardcore discussions between the C’s and A’s. The “I’m right, you’re wrong” arguments never get won — by either side.

    • chicagoja said

      Kick-back is what blogs are all about. Already got a couple from C’s.

    • chicagoja said

      So, what kind of kick-back/ hardcore discussion did you get on your recent post on this subject?

      • Nan said

        Why don’t you visit and see? 🙂

      • chicagoja said

        I did. I was just curious what you thought about the feedback you received.

      • Nan said

        Sorry for the delay … other things going on.

        I think many people have been so indoctrinated by Christianity that it’s difficult for them to step “outside the box” in order to answer the question. There were a couple of people who seemed to take a more “neutral” stance when answering, but as you probably noticed, many simply couldn’t seem to get away from “the familiar.”

        Quite frankly, while it was interesting to read the various comments, I would have liked more people to have answered from a more neutral POV. But like I said … the indoctrination runs deep.

      • chicagoja said

        I totally agree. It’s difficult to face the truth when it means giving up a cherished belief system. The subconscious mind won’t allow it.

  2. Arkenaten said

    Science can make claims based on what it has uncovered through testing and observation.
    Religion, or in this case Christianity, has absolutely no leg to stand on. Nothing.

    The statement, ”I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable and honest reply to a great many questions, including those of an existential nature.

    Christianity is simply a crock.

    • chicagoja said

      There you go cherry-picking again. George Wald admitted that spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago(by Louis Pasteur) so get over it. As bio-chemist Michael Denton put it, “Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.” Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of “Origin of Cellular Life” , declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation were one chance in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Even Sir Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick did not believe in spontaneous combustion, so why should you. Of course, even you apparently admit that one of the commenters was wrong. The one that I cited who said that, “Neither our observable universe, nor possibly a larger cosmos, require some intelligence or higher power for their ‘creation.’” As opposed to what you (correctly stated)is that science can make claims based on what it has uncovered through testing and observation. Obviously, an unobserved larger cosmos is not subject to testing and observation. For that matter, your statement that evolution is fact also fails by your admission, that being that science can make claims (not fact). Why do you keep championing a dead horse?

      • Arkenaten said

        I did not even mention spontaneous generation.
        I simply said that science makes claims based on observation and testing whereas religion (Christianity) is simply a crock.

        Based on your reply it would seem that it is you that needs to not only stop championing a dead horse but realise it hasn’t even got out the gate.

    • chicagoja said

      By the way, your statement that Christianity is simply a crock is also worthy of comment. Even is Christianity is a crock, it doesn’t mean that you are therefore right about evolution. It doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, rather it means that the Christian god is rather dubious (at best).

      • Arkenaten said

        Of course it doesn’t, which is why I made the comment about, ”I don’t know”.
        And Christianity is even more a crock because it believes it has the answer.

      • chicagoja said

        But you mentioned evolution, didn’t you?

      • Arkenaten said

        On this post? Where?

      • chicagoja said

        Do I have to repeatedly remind you that you said that evolution was a fact. See your comment to Nan’s post.

      • Arkenaten said

        Oh, evolution is fact.

        After all, this is the absolute overwhelming consensus based upon evidence, yes?

        I don’t recall you offering any substantiated alternative.

      • chicagoja said

        Wow. So, let me see if I got this right. If I don’t provide any evidence to support a counter position, then you’re right? That’s terrific logic. So, I guess I should never pick up another science book and see what the giants of science say. Guys like Pasteur, Wald, Gould, Hoyle and Crick. I can just get my science facts from you!!

      • Arkenaten said

        Nope. You are talking specifically evolution.
        Evolution is considered fact.

        If you wish to say I don’t know then go for it.

      • chicagoja said

        In your circles, evolution might be considered fact, but then nobody in your circle even as much as gets published in a science journal, let alone is a Nobel laureate. If you want to live in this bubble of “evolution is fact”, you’ll have to do it in only your little circle. If you have a valid comment, I’d love to here it. However, saying evolution is fact, without proving any supporting evidence, is certainly not fact.

      • chicagoja said

        You even admitted it on a prior comment on 10/17 on my post “Between Science and Faith.”

  3. Arkenaten said

    nobody in your circle even as much as gets published in a science journal, let alone is a Nobel laureate.

    My ”circle”?

  4. Arkenaten said

    And the link below should adequately answer your claim that: In your circles, evolution might be considered fact, but then nobody in your circle even as much as gets published in a science journal, let alone is a Nobel laureate.

    Go stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, you sanctimonious ignorant fucking prick.

    • chicagoja said

      Oh, I got it now. Silly me. The National Center of Science Education and Leland Hartwell constitute “absolute,overwhelming consensus.”

      • Arkenaten said

        Oh, and did you feel a twinge of shame when you read all about the peer-reviewed scientists who accept evolution as fact, along with the Nobel Prize winners that you stated were not there, or do you simply revel in being such a fool?

        The air must be so rarefied where you are that the lack of oxygen has addled your brain.

      • chicagoja said

        Of course, there will always be people with vested interests. Peer-reviewed means very little in science today, or most any other field for that matter. Sadly, you can’t always trust a Nobel laureate either. With respect to evolution, there are only two kinds of scientists. Those that believe in God and those that don’t. Guess which ones believe in evolution and which ones don’t? Ideology always precedes scientific inquiry, so those that believe in God do not believe in evolution and those that do not believe in a god, do believe in evolution. How intellectually honest. There is one barometer that one can almost always rely on, though. That’s when someone comes out and says something that runs counter to their own belief system. For example, well-known evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Ruse and George Wald who say that evolution is not what you say it is – a fact. Yes, boys and girls, evolution is not a fact, it’s not even good theory. As I said in my post, the problem with having this kind of discussion with someone like you is that, from your standpoint, your ideology is not falsifiable. I could give you absolute proof that your position is untenable and you would still call me names. Who cares. I post my blogs for people who actually care about finding the truth, not those who think that they already know it. Mark Twain was right… and he was talking about you.

      • Arkenaten said

        You were the one who brought up peer review and the Nobel Prize and now you are denigrating your own standard!

        The theory of evolution is considered fact by the vast majority of scientists and those in the relevant fields.

        No viable alternative has been offered.
        Feel free if you think this is incorrect.

        I could give you absolute proof that your position is untenable and you would still call me names.

        If all you are going to do is spew these vacuous comments that simply sound like whining then don’t be surprised when you called out for what you are – and this was demonstrated perfectly after your ridiculous back pedaling over the peer review and Nobel Prize issue.

        You post your blogs because you are a narcissist who likes to think he is so much smarter than the hundreds of thousands of people who dedicate their lives to make your life better …. and evolution is a large part of this and one reason why your GP doesn’t attach leeches to your body when you complain of flu or are running a fever.

        Mark Twain also wrote:

        “Having faith is believing in something you just know ain’t true.”

        And he was talking about you.

      • chicagoja said

        Actually, you just paraphrased my Twain quote. Oh, well. Look, you need to stop debating with me on a subject that you are not an expert on. To be fair, you need to go debate with a scientist who doesn’t believe in evolution. Better yet, go talk to Wald, Gould and Ruse. They would set you straight. Oh, well. Obviously, you don’t want to because you have never commented on them when I have brought up their names (on many occasions, like my last comment). Oh, well. I can’t believe that I’m still talking with you. Oh, well. I can’t believe that your such a bad troll. Oh, well. I can’t believe this is the last time we’ll ever communicate again…. Oh,well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: